This is just pure rambling! Really nothing but illogically trying to prove your own opinion and not stepping back and looking at the reality! Please champ, look at what happend, especially Shaq being the major reason, along with Phil's coaching, that made the Lakers champs.

#32 wrote:God, where do I begin...

migya wrote:I said that when the player is a main part of that winning! which Iverson and Nowitzki are DEFINATLELY!

And you're saying that Kobe WASN'T just as big (if not a bigger) part of the Laker's success?!? Kobe was of more value to the Lakers than Iverson or Dirk are to their respective teams! Pop quiz: which other players in the league can convince their team's GMs that their amount of value is worth trading Shaq?!? The answer's not many (definately not Nowitski or Iverson)! This is a null comment.

Yes, I am saying that Kobe Bryant WASN'T as big a part of the Lakers success than Shaq and he definately didn't mean as much to the championship Laker teams as both Iverson and Dirk mean to their own teams! Look at it this way - Kobe was the 2nd best player on the Lakers championship teams and without Shaq the Lakers, with Phil or not, would have not even come close to winning anything and would have MAYBE just made the playoffs! Take Iverson away from the 76ers and you have one of the 4 worst teams in the nba! Take Dirk away from the mavs and they would have next to no chance of making the playoffs, only way they are still a good team is if players that have the potential to play well (like Terry, Dampier, Howard, Daniels and Stackhouse) actually play that way, which they are not right now (Dirk is the difference between the mavs being a top 4 team and just a "maybe" a playoff team!

#32 wrote:

migya wrote:Odom is looking more effective than Webber. The two look very similar to their teams but Odom really is like a playmaker, more so than Webber. Guys like Mihm and Parker are solid this season and the Lakers would be nowhere if they were not contributing.

Yes, Chris Webber is probably not as good as Lamar Odom right now. The rest of the team??? Not so much, migya. If you removed Bryant & Odom, along with Iverson & Webber, from their team's lineup and placed their teams in a game against each other, LA would be slaughtered! Smush Parker's sporadic value has plummeted now that teams are expecting him to be more than simply a pee-on player... and I wont even start on Chris Mihm's less than anything play. This sounds like more praising of mediocre players who don't deserve it (ala Mehmet Okur).

Lakers would get slaughtered???? You must be thinking of the early 80s 76ers team that won a championship! Korver, Dalembert, Iguodala, Salmons vs Parker, Mihm, George, Cook - Pretty evenly mathched, crap but even.

#32 wrote:

migya wrote:LASTLY! Phil Jackson's over-rated coaching????? Nothing more than the best coach in history!!!! A man who molds a team around a superstar well! The Lakers won nothing for 4 years with Shaq and then easily won when Phil took over! That means something!

Yes, migya, over-rated. Okay, he wont rings with stacked teams led by Michael Jordan (the greatest player of all-time) and Shaquille O'Neal (the most dominant force to ever pick up a basketball). The one season he FINALLY has to prove himself without cramming superstar players onto the roster, he wont even make the playoffs! Best coach of all time my ass! He's over-rated and SOMEBODY'S drinking his kool-aid right now...

Shaq was with the Lakers 3 years and they were not even close to the finals! Phil comes on board and they are by far the best team in the league and win 3 straight championships! Nothing more to say, he knows something!

#32 wrote:Kobe has 3 rings, migya. Seems like a proven winner to me.)

Kobe won because of Shaq! You said so yourself that where Shaq is there is a big chance of a championship! Kobe struggled last season with a pretty good team (Odom, Butler, Askins etc) and this season he again can't make the Lakers a winner! Even with Phil! Being on a championship team doesn't make you a great winner eg. Bill Wennington. Kobe was the 2nd major piece but has done nothing without the big star!

#32 wrote:

migya wrote:SOUNDS LIKE A SICK JOKE OR JUST AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE US LAUGH! The 76ers a championship squad........ NO MATE! That team is a long way off from being championship caliber! Webber is not what he used to be and is overachieving this season. Korver is a clown (and that is being polite!), Dalembert is getting better but close to nothing offensively, Iguodala is a player that does a little bit of everything but nothing much of anything and the rest of the team are "never going to be anythings"!

Yes, I agree. And Bryant's addition would probably spark them to NBA Finals status. Remember, Kobe's better than Iverson.

AGAIN NOT FUNNY!Kobe would not make the 76ers a finals team, not anymore than what they are! And Iverson is better than Kobe! Iverson has done very well with so little! Kobe never pulled a team as far as Iverson has and does! Iverson took the rather untalented 76ers to the finals against Kobe's Lakers when they got their second championship! Kobe is scoring alot this season (takes a ton of shot too) but Iverson has been doing that since the beginning of his career!

YES THEY DO!Dwayne Wade is a superstar!!!! More effective than Kobe and not the ball hog! He makes his teammates better! Walker, Posey, JWill and Payton are far better than what most teams have and probably are too much which is why the Heat might fail this season - Too many great shooters! Even without Shaq, this team is a definate playoff team and would have a good chance of going far!

#32 wrote:

migya wrote:Another JOKE! Bryant carried the Lakers when they had Shaq....... NO! He wanted to but just couldn't do it! Shaq was never injured much anyway and nothing like he is now with the Heat!

Oh, you're right, migya, how foolish of me... oh, wait a minute, no, you're completely wrong: Shaquille O'Neal played 73 games with the Heat last season... something he achieved with the Lakers only TWICE DURING HIS EIGHT YEARS THERE! O'Neal even had a 49 game season in his second year in LA and STILL the Lakers were a playoff team (thanks to Bryant)! God forbid the 14-year veteran (who pounds around inside, mind you, he's not simply dribbling the ball up the court or anything non-physical) sprains his ankle coming down on it wrong! "Shaq was never injured much anyway and nothing like he is now with the Heat"?!?!?! Where the hell did THAT come from? Do you even check your facts? Kobe Bryant's 80+ games a season is what kept LA in the runnings every year when Shaq only played 60 games.

AND WHEN THEY GOT TO THE PLAYOFFS............ SHAQ was everything!!!! The Lakers were never a force when Shaq was injured! With him they were great, without him they struggled to win! Shaq was the Finals MVP all 3 times! That says it all!

He's hurt his team enormously. They were contenders before and they aren't anymore. No player that hurts his team this much should be considered a great one, no matter how he performs on the court.

Being a top player is not based only on talent, but on doing everything possible to help your team win. And that's where Kobe fails...

You have a point, TMC. However, it is purely opinion-based. I can see how one would view it that way, but I would have to disagree. Just because Vince Carter gave up halfway through the season for the Raptors doesn't take anything away from his value to a team. I think Kobe's basically the same thing. His attitude is questionable (just like an injury-prone player's status is 'questionable'), but when he plays the way he should, he's an undeniable force. Kobe Bryant's unintentional sabatoge of the Laker's roster wasn't done out of malicious intent, either. He wasn't trying to screw LA out of being a contender; he just wanted the chance to be their hero himself. It's selfish, but he didn't harm the team on purpose. That being said, I can't take anything away from him simply for being selfish. I view Allen Iverson as a selfish player, but still respect his skills.

Now, onto migya...

migya wrote:This is just pure rambling! Really nothing but illogically trying to prove your own opinion

Well, obviously! It's stated countless times in this article; this is purely an opinion-based thread! However, it seems like you're taking your opinion as law... when, in fact, you're very incorrect on several glaring remarks. My opinion may differ from other peoples, but at least I don't advertise it as fact. The way you've been shutting down any and all of my ideas in this article shows that your mind wasn't even close to being open upon reading my list; you simply didn't give anything I said a chance. That is the mark of someone who's clearly not open to new ideas. Dismiss this article as "rambling" or "illogical" if it satisfies your need for only one opinion (yours), but I'd prefer to keep everyone's comments in regard and respond to them with factual information (such as my statistics on Shaquille O'Neal or my history on Phil Jackson's rosters). Yes, this article is opinion and the responses are opinion (the way they should be). But disagreeing simply because you feel like it (without any actual substance behind your argument) isn't going to seem logical to anybody but your friends on this forum. That's all I have to say about regarding the opinions of others (as well as your own).

migya wrote:Yes, I am saying that Kobe Bryant WASN'T as big a part of the Lakers success than Shaq and he definately didn't mean as much to the championship Laker teams as both Iverson and Dirk mean to their own teams! Look at it this way - Kobe was the 2nd best player on the Lakers championship teams and without Shaq the Lakers, with Phil or not, would have not even come close to winning anything and would have MAYBE just made the playoffs! Take Iverson away from the 76ers and you have one of the 4 worst teams in the nba! Take Dirk away from the mavs and they would have next to no chance of making the playoffs, only way they are still a good team is if players that have the potential to play well (like Terry, Dampier, Howard, Daniels and Stackhouse) actually play that way, which they are not right now (Dirk is the difference between the mavs being a top 4 team and just a "maybe" a playoff team!

I wasn't refering to "back in the day" when the Lakers won the rings; I'm talking about right now. The Lakers are fighting for an 8th seed with Bryant at the helm. Without him, they'd be the worst team in the league. The Sixers (who are currently playoff bound) would still be fighting for the final seed in the East if Iverson wasn't in the picture. I'm also sure that without Dirk, the Mavericks (who are currently playoff contenders) would still barely make the post-season. Bryant's presence in LA seems to be the only "life and death" situation between these three.

Regardless, I think this is a pointless example either way. Dirk Nowitski is effective on one side of the floor only (on offense). If the Mavericks are down by 2 with 20 seconds left, they will never look at Dirk to make/spark a defensive play for possesion. In Iverson's case, it's a matter of me, me, and me. If teams double him up (and he can't break out of it), he feels content to shoot the ball in double coverage rather than pass it away to the open man. He's the most selfish player in the league. In my eyes, Dirk and Allen are not even in Kobe's league.

migya wrote:Lakers would get slaughtered???? You must be thinking of the early 80s 76ers team that won a championship! Korver, Dalembert, Iguodala, Salmons vs Parker, Mihm, George, Cook - Pretty evenly mathched, crap but even.

Again, I disagree. I see Iguiodala and Korver as difference-makers in this sort of game. Parker will play the Iverson role and try to be the star on offense, but is (ultimately) not skilled enough to make a big enough splash against Andre's defense. Mihm versus Dalembert is a clearly won victory for Samuel. Chris Mihm is a decent 5, but Dalembert can rebound, block shots, and score on the inside better. Lastly, it comes to Salmons versus Deavon George (aka, LA's only real advantage). The Sixers are the clear (if not obvious) choice to win the game.

migya wrote:Shaq was with the Lakers 3 years and they were not even close to the finals! Phil comes on board and they are by far the best team in the league and win 3 straight championships! Nothing more to say, he knows something!

Yes, Shaq and who? The Van Exel, Jones, and Bryant team had the best shot, but they were still plagued by O'Neal's injuries, Van Exel's sporadic shooting, and Bryant's inexperience. The year Phil Jackson arrived, LA threw together a team of experienced, still usefull, playoff tested veterans (Horace Grant, Ron Harper, Robert Horry, ect) to compliment Shaq & Kobe's raw talent. Did Jackson's coaching win the title? Certainly not. Moreso than anything, Jackson's religious affiliation as a Buddhist inspires him to calm his players all season and work out their personal problems. Perhaps there's never been a better coach at connecting with his players on a personal level to solve off-the-court problems (including the Shaq-&-Kobe drama, which is, in my opinion, the only thing that held them back all those years that you spoke of), but as far as calling for substitutions, players in the game, plays ran (yes, I'm insulting the triangle), and relationships on the court with the referees, Jackson is average at best! I will more than happily acknowledge his ability to work out the off-the-court kinks on every team he's coached, but the rest of his playbook is generic and bland.

migya wrote:Kobe won because of Shaq! You said so yourself that where Shaq is there is a big chance of a championship! Kobe struggled last season with a pretty good team (Odom, Butler, Askins etc) and this season he again can't make the Lakers a winner! Even with Phil! Being on a championship team doesn't make you a great winner eg. Bill Wennington. Kobe was the 2nd major piece but has done nothing without the big star!

O'Neal's unbelievable value to a team is what overshadowed Bryant's value during the championship years. It's true, he had the worst season of his adult career (aka, since he's been starting) last season, but adjustment will always shake players games. His entire starting lineup (and thensome) pretty much switched on him! Shaq, Mailman, GP, Horry, and Fisher all vanished in place of players like Chris Mihm and Chucky Atkins! It's no wonder Bryant's numbers fell like a corpse; the #8 on his jersey was nothing more than a bullseye to opposing teams! It was obvious; shut down Bryant and the rest of the team is too poor to make a difference (which is why he's so highly valued in LA). This season, despite defenders clouding him left and right, Kobe's still finding ways to average 30 points a game and keep LA in the race! Talk about pulling a team by his teeth; Bryant's value to LA cannot be denied (or dismissed simply because Shaq was by his side for half the games of the season).

migya wrote:AGAIN NOT FUNNY!Kobe would not make the 76ers a finals team, not anymore than what they are! And Iverson is better than Kobe! Iverson has done very well with so little! Kobe never pulled a team as far as Iverson has and does! Iverson took the rather untalented 76ers to the finals against Kobe's Lakers when they got their second championship! Kobe is scoring alot this season (takes a ton of shot too) but Iverson has been doing that since the beginning of his career!

Ok, migya, Iverson's better than Kobe at scoring... now what? Kobe can out-rebound him, out-defend him, more-often-than-not create better plays than him, and still finds time to score as many points as him. Yet, you call Iverson a better player? Like I said, don't accuse people of being biased without checking yourself first...

migya wrote:YES THEY DO!Dwayne Wade is a superstar!!!! More effective than Kobe and not the ball hog! He makes his teammates better! Walker, Posey, JWill and Payton are far better than what most teams have and probably are too much which is why the Heat might fail this season - Too many great shooters! Even without Shaq, this team is a definate playoff team and would have a good chance of going far!

Dwayne Wade's chances for failure far out-weight Kobe's. Injury is so much more likely since he's so tightly pulled together (unlike the more relaxed-built Kobe). Wade is way more likely to pull or snap something. That being said, they're basically the same player (save for Kobe's a better rebounder/defender and Dwayne's a better passer), so give me Bryant (who's not as largely at risk for injury). Walker and Posey are also good additions (which would make the team a playoff team, but nothing else). Unfortunately, Jason William's value this year is largely due to the double teams he's being left open from while playing with Shaq. Williams has posted career highs in FG%, FT%, and 3-Point % this season. Subtract O'Neal (like they did for 4 weeks), and he'll struggle (like he did in those 4 weeks) back to his usual 38-40%. Gary Payton is also too far down the road to be anything more than a capable passer. His shooting touch still works (when left open), but his ability to drive is very scarred (largely in part because the ability to get past his defenders has left him). As with Williams, his game would suffer without the Big Guy on his team.

migya wrote:AND WHEN THEY GOT TO THE PLAYOFFS............ SHAQ was everything!!!! The Lakers were never a force when Shaq was injured! With him they were great, without him they struggled to win! Shaq was the Finals MVP all 3 times! That says it all!

So what you're saying in essense is that Kobe did all the grunt work to get LA to the post season (posting huge numbers, being a clutch genius, and working his ass off day in and day out) until Shaquille O'Neal's aging ankles played hard in the playoffs? Hmmm... the post season (at it's longest) can be 26 games long. The regular season is 82. Who deserves more credit: the guy who played well in 26 games or the guy who played well in 82? Not taking anything away from Shaq, but Kobe Bryant's success was an inevitable thing. One day, Kobe's jersey will hang in the Staples Center next to Magic's and Kareem's (where it belongs). He'll eventually make the Hall of Fame (also, where he belongs). Kobe Bryant is one of the best players we'll see in our lifetime. I'd prefer not to hop on the hateful wagon and slaughter him simply because he's struggling in the transitional phase of the Lakers.

I place Duncan over Shaq because of right now he has more presence on a team. This of course was not always the case of course, and two years ago Shaq would be at the top. Shaq is in a close second because he is still a massive force on the floor that cannot be handled by any one man.

The next three players are up here because they have little help but are immensely talented. KG is three because he has the least help of anyone on the list and he still managed to take his team to the West finals. Lebron is going to be like KG, doing a lot with very little help, but from the SF position. Iverson, too, is like KG but does it in the East. The diviersity and impact of their types of game are what seperate those three.

The next three players are in that order because, although they cannot lead a team deep into the playoffs on their own(I know LeBron hasn't yet but he is barely 21 and may do so this year), they have the ability to take over a game at any moment. Kobe does this the most often and to the greatest degree, followed shortly by T-Mac. It is shocking how similar the two are with their game. Dirk follows up because although he wins more than the other two he doesn't make a defensive impact the way that the rest of the players on this list do.

The final two are almost interchangeable. I give Nash the nod because he has actually led his team deep and makes smarter plays with the ball. Baron's talent is above Nash's but Nash has a bigger impact on a talented team due to his decision making. However both need other players to be really effective, which is why they are not higher. Baron can take over a game like Kobe, T-Mac, and Dirk, but doesn't do it enough to push a team into the playoffs (hopefully that will change). Nash on the other hand doesn't have the physical tools to do so, but he facilitates others on his team better than anyone else. Which leads me to the runners up . . .

Stoudemire and Marion, even with their enormous talent failed to do much of anything with Nash gone. Stoudemire, however, can be scary good when he is healthy and I am honestly frightened of how good the Suns will be when he comes back. He and Marion both fill up the stat sheet at alarming rates. Carter and Kidd are great talents too, but they fall short because of consistency (Carter) and ability to score at will (Kidd). The rest have their problems as well: Wade will probably be a top 10 soon, but he has to make some noise without Shaq before he cracks the list; AK-47 is close to being a top tier player except he can't score at will and hasn't won. His game, however, is similar to KG's and LeBron's in terms of being able to do everything. Finally, Paul Pierce takes over a lot of games, but his team still loses them. Ray Allen can shoot the lights out and his team to a win on any night, but it is a 50/50 chance that it will work out simply because he has to score from outside.

Artest can't be on the list because he can help a team . . . but he can also destroy one. Also his offensive contributions are top 10 material. J-Rich needs to develop a more consistent game. A lot of other players are too young or too one dimensional or too inconsistent.

That's it, that's the list. Let me know what you think in comparison to #32's

He's hurt his team enormously. They were contenders before and they aren't anymore. No player that hurts his team this much should be considered a great one, no matter how he performs on the court.

Being a top player is not based only on talent, but on doing everything possible to help your team win. And that's where Kobe fails...

You have a point, TMC. However, it is purely opinion-based. I can see how one would view it that way, but I would have to disagree. Just because Vince Carter gave up halfway through the season for the Raptors doesn't take anything away from his value to a team. I think Kobe's basically the same thing. His attitude is questionable (just like an injury-prone player's status is 'questionable'), but when he plays the way he should, he's an undeniable force. Kobe Bryant's unintentional sabatoge of the Laker's roster wasn't done out of malicious intent, either. He wasn't trying to screw LA out of being a contender; he just wanted the chance to be their hero himself. It's selfish, but he didn't harm the team on purpose. That being said, I can't take anything away from him simply for being selfish. I view Allen Iverson as a selfish player, but still respect his skills.

And Kobe is not selfish.........

#32 wrote:Now, onto migya...

migya wrote:This is just pure rambling! Really nothing but illogically trying to prove your own opinion

Dismiss this article as "rambling" or "illogical" if it satisfies your need for only one opinion (yours), but I'd prefer to keep everyone's comments in regard and respond to them with factual information (such as my statistics on Shaquille O'Neal or my history on Phil Jackson's rosters). Yes, this article is opinion and the responses are opinion (the way they should be). But disagreeing simply because you feel like it (without any actual substance behind your argument) isn't going to seem logical to anybody but your friends on this forum. That's all I have to say about regarding the opinions of others (as well as your own).

Sounds like whining as well......... Opinions are opinions but some are just way off from obvious fact, like you not even including Iverson in your top ten!!!!!!!!

#32 wrote:I wasn't refering to "back in the day" when the Lakers won the rings; I'm talking about right now. The Lakers are fighting for an 8th seed with Bryant at the helm. Without him, they'd be the worst team in the league. The Sixers (who are currently playoff bound) would still be fighting for the final seed in the East if Iverson wasn't in the picture. I'm also sure that without Dirk, the Mavericks (who are currently playoff contenders) would still barely make the post-season. Bryant's presence in LA seems to be the only "life and death" situation between these three.

Firstly, without Kobe Bryant, players like Odom would get a chance to get the ball a bit! Players like Mihm and Cook could really become something but since Kobe "owns" the basketball they get VERY limited chances to do anything!

Like I said, if players like Howard, Terry, Daniels, Stackhouse and Dampier played to their abilities, the mavs would still be playoff contenders without Dirk BUT that is unlikely, especially with Stack past it and Dampier an absolute bust!

Also, WITHOUT ALLEN IVERSON THE 76ERS WOULD BE A DISGRACE!!!!!!!!!! They would be one of the worst teams in the league and would be no where near the playoffs!

#32 wrote:Regardless, I think this is a pointless example either way. Dirk Nowitski is effective on one side of the floor only (on offense). If the Mavericks are down by 2 with 20 seconds left, they will never look at Dirk to make/spark a defensive play for possesion. In Iverson's case, it's a matter of me, me, and me. If teams double him up (and he can't break out of it), he feels content to shoot the ball in double coverage rather than pass it away to the open man. He's the most selfish player in the league. In my eyes, Dirk and Allen are not even in Kobe's league.

The mavs would definately look for Dirk to win the game at the offensive end if they were down 2!!!! Make no doubt about it!!!!

Kobe is the me, me and me!!!! When Iverson is double teamed, he gives the ball to his teammates! How do you think he gets all the assists!

#32 wrote:

migya wrote:Lakers would get slaughtered???? You must be thinking of the early 80s 76ers team that won a championship! Korver, Dalembert, Iguodala, Salmons vs Parker, Mihm, George, Cook - Pretty evenly mathched, crap but even.

Again, I disagree. I see Iguiodala and Korver as difference-makers in this sort of game. Parker will play the Iverson role and try to be the star on offense, but is (ultimately) not skilled enough to make a big enough splash against Andre's defense. Mihm versus Dalembert is a clearly won victory for Samuel. Chris Mihm is a decent 5, but Dalembert can rebound, block shots, and score on the inside better. Lastly, it comes to Salmons versus Deavon George (aka, LA's only real advantage). The Sixers are the clear (if not obvious) choice to win the game.

Mihm is not a bad player and can score as much if not more than Dalembert, though I think Dalembert could become a great player. Iguodala is just not doing a whole lot yet and Korver is a shooter (not always that good either) and NOTHING ELSE! The 76ers are getting by with not much talent around Webber and Iverson!

#32 wrote:

migya wrote:Shaq was with the Lakers 3 years and they were not even close to the finals! Phil comes on board and they are by far the best team in the league and win 3 straight championships! Nothing more to say, he knows something!

Yes, Shaq and who? The Van Exel, Jones, and Bryant team had the best shot, but they were still plagued by O'Neal's injuries, Van Exel's sporadic shooting, and Bryant's inexperience. The year Phil Jackson arrived, LA threw together a team of experienced, still usefull, playoff tested veterans (Horace Grant, Ron Harper, Robert Horry, ect) to compliment Shaq & Kobe's raw talent.

Horry was already there but it is true that Grant and Harper helped the team, not much on the court, but with their experience and leadership.

#32 wrote:

migya wrote:Kobe won because of Shaq! You said so yourself that where Shaq is there is a big chance of a championship! Kobe struggled last season with a pretty good team (Odom, Butler, Askins etc) and this season he again can't make the Lakers a winner! Even with Phil! Being on a championship team doesn't make you a great winner eg. Bill Wennington. Kobe was the 2nd major piece but has done nothing without the big star!

Shaq, Mailman, GP, Horry, and Fisher all vanished in place of players like Chris Mihm and Chucky Atkins!

Yea, Odom, Butler and Askins are not good players and didn't do anything for them last season....... Kobe takes it himself because he wants to be a hero! He has enough talent around him to make the team at least a playoff team!

#32 wrote:

migya wrote:AGAIN NOT FUNNY!Kobe would not make the 76ers a finals team, not anymore than what they are! And Iverson is better than Kobe! Iverson has done very well with so little! Kobe never pulled a team as far as Iverson has and does! Iverson took the rather untalented 76ers to the finals against Kobe's Lakers when they got their second championship! Kobe is scoring alot this season (takes a ton of shot too) but Iverson has been doing that since the beginning of his career!

Ok, migya, Iverson's better than Kobe at scoring... now what? Kobe can out-rebound him, out-defend him, more-often-than-not create better plays than him, and still finds time to score as many points as him. Yet, you call Iverson a better player? Like I said, don't accuse people of being biased without checking yourself first...

You tell me to get the hard facts!!!! Look at what they've done in their careers and look at what they are doing this season! - This season the two are even in scoring, only the second time Kobe has been ahead of Iverson in a season and he still may not outscore him! Also, Kobe gets more rebounds but not a whole lot more and he is not impressive for his height, (how many 6ft tall players average 3 and a half rebounds and 4 rebounds for their career! Kobe averags only 5 for his career - 1 more!), Iverson is averaging 3 more assists more than Kobe! A showing of how Kobe is the ball hog! Lastly, Iverson yet again averages more steals, almost 1 more a game and he again almost leads the league!!!! THAT'S FACTS!!!!!!!!!!

#32 wrote:

migya wrote:AND WHEN THEY GOT TO THE PLAYOFFS............ SHAQ was everything!!!! The Lakers were never a force when Shaq was injured! With him they were great, without him they struggled to win! Shaq was the Finals MVP all 3 times! That says it all!

So what you're saying in essense is that Kobe did all the grunt work to get LA to the post season (posting huge numbers, being a clutch genius, and working his ass off day in and day out) until Shaquille O'Neal's aging ankles played hard in the playoffs? Hmmm... the post season (at it's longest) can be 26 games long. The regular season is 82. Who deserves more credit: the guy who played well in 26 games or the guy who played well in 82? Not taking anything away from Shaq, but Kobe Bryant's success was an inevitable thing. One day, Kobe's jersey will hang in the Staples Center next to Magic's and Kareem's (where it belongs). He'll eventually make the Hall of Fame (also, where he belongs). Kobe Bryant is one of the best players we'll see in our lifetime. I'd prefer not to hop on the hateful wagon and slaughter him simply because he's struggling in the transitional phase of the Lakers.

TO REALLY SHOW YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTS!!!! - In the Lakers 3 championship seasons, that's 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, Shaquille O'neal played 79, 74 and 67 games respectively!!!! Who contributed to the Lakers success during the regular season AND the playoffs????!!!! Answer = SHAQUILLE O'NEAL

I agree with your top 5, and the others are in or out just based on personal opinion. It's too hard to say who's better at that level, and even harder when they play different positions.

Migya and #32.- Just a few points, I'm not going to answer to each and every paragraph:

1.- I think the Sixers roster is way better than the Lakers. Iggy, Korver & Dalembert seems like a decent supporting cast for me.

2.- Bryant is a better player on the court than Iverson, because he has a lot more physical tools to work with. But his ego is the reason the Lakers are an afterthought when it comes to contenders. Not even TO has done more damage to his own team. So, if I have to pick one player, it would never, ever, be Bryant. I'd pick Adonal freaking Foyle as the cornerstone of my franchise instead of Bryant... At least I'd have the chance to build through draft...

I agree with your top 5, and the others are in or out just based on personal opinion. It's too hard to say who's better at that level, and even harder when they play different positions.

Migya and #32.- Just a few points, I'm not going to answer to each and every paragraph:

1.- I think the Sixers roster is way better than the Lakers. Iggy, Korver & Dalembert seems like a decent supporting cast for me.

2.- Bryant is a better player on the court than Iverson, because he has a lot more physical tools to work with. But his ego is the reason the Lakers are an afterthought when it comes to contenders. Not even TO has done more damage to his own team. So, if I have to pick one player, it would never, ever, be Bryant. I'd pick Adonal freaking Foyle as the cornerstone of my franchise instead of Bryant... At least I'd have the chance to build through draft...

I don't agree - I don't think that Iguodala, Korver and Dalembert are that good yet but both Iguodala and Dalembert will be as soon as next season while Korver is a real concern.

I also think that Iverson is better - He has done so much with so little and seems to be taken for granted

I wont continue to respond to your comments here, migya. It's turned into one of your pissing matches where you latch onto the same points and wont logically defend yourself. It's turning into a waste of time. Around other places in the forum, we're cool. But this topic just isn't going anywhere. I've said my piece with plenty of proof, logic, statistics, and personal opinion. Your points only seem to emphasize opinion. I wont continue this cyberspace slapfight over something that can't be won.

The List of 10 Players that I posted will help their teams win the most. Iverson will only take the Sixers as far as his scoring will carry them, which isn't good for the franchise as a whole or his talented teammates that are decaying around him. He's at my 11 spot, but anything higher would be criminal.